December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Pasting in From:
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nerthus wrote: >Since anonymous remailing is now considered a free service in the >minds of most of its users, charging for it does not make sense. I'd >be curious to know how much money has been collected by the >ecash-accepting remailer that Ian Goldberg set up a couple months >back. My guess is it has brought in very little money. There is really no reason to use it. It seems to be the same as the jam remailer which is free. I had hoped to use it as an exit remailer, but even that is a loss as it apparently uses cracker (?) for that purpose. What we did learn is that it isn't that hard to set up a remailer to accept ecash. I doubt we've learned much about the market potential. The recent reports of the anonymizer pulling in $180,000 annually are worth thinking about. >[nym] remailer like I mentioned above may become lucrative if it >generates enough repeat customers (i.e., persistent nyms). So could >charging a fee for each address put in the Bcc: header. This is a good idea. Ecash accepting remailers should offer perks which are not generally available, or just offer a faster more reliable service to paying customers. For example, free messages are delayed 90 minutes while paid messages are sent immediately, modulo some details like mixing. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Pasting in From: To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0

Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has highlighted the tensions between the different types of Net-advocacy groups here in Washington. The civil liberties groups (ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CPSR), and journalism, publishers, and media groups have lined up on one side [http://www.ifea.org/] saying the government shouldn't pressure the Internet to self-censor (or be censored by the Feds). They held a counter-summit press conference yesterday. Even the libertarian Cato Institute is in this corner. On the other side, the Center for Democracy and Technology [http://www.cdt.org/] is participating in the summit along with antiporn groups, high tech firms, and "censorware" vendors. CDT says that the Net needs to self-regulate or face the wrath of the U.S. Congress. (Folks at CDT generally take pro-industry positions and have been involved in many compromises in the past: wiretapping, "harmful to minors," and jail time for use of encryption in a crime.) CDT, however, has called for the development of multiple rating systems. You could easily tell the difference between the two outlooks today. ACLU associate director Barry Steinhardt and CDT director Jerry Berman debated this afternoon. "If we sit back and we offer nothing... that's not a solution for the American public," Berman said. He said that CDT is "looking to balance free speech rights" with other values. -Declan At 11:04 -0400 12/2/97, Michael Sims wrote: >What "they" are saying: > >SF Chronicle: > >"Internet Self-Regulation Draws Wide Praise But advocates for free >speech call for extreme caution > >Jon Swartz, Chronicle Staff Writer > > Civil libertarians and porn peddlers yesterday praised the Internet >industry's attempt at sweeping self-regulation to keep smut out of >the hands of children and the government at arms' length. ..." > > >Civil libertarians praised sweeping self-regulation, eh? I hope >everyone realizes this is CDT that is doing this. They continue to >claim they are a civil liberties group, and continue to push for >restrictions on civil liberties. Has the ACLU considered setting up >a group which describes itself as "conservative and pro-family" in >its press releases and pushes continually for the elimination of >censorware and ratings? Such a trojan horse group could hardly do as >much damage to the censor crowd as CDT continues to do to the >free-speech crowd, but perhaps it would achieve some measure of >compensation. > >"Pros: [of "filtering"] Filtering does block out almost all >inappropriate material." > >I sure am glad our message is getting out. > >"Education. A series of TV spots and school-sponsored programs >touting filtering software will debut next fall." > >What a treat. Bennett? Know anything about this one? > > >Plenty more to come on this subject, I'm sure. > > >-- Michael Sims

3 2

The Eye Bank
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vin McLellan wrote: >With respect, I disagree. I think it is quite likely that an >iris-scan technology can effectively differentiate between a living >eye and a reproduction (or, as one of my many correspondents on this >topic suggested, an eye forcibly removed from the socket of a >potential fraud victim.) In any case, the issue of false >positives/negatives will be settled with evidence. I think the >technology will probably be useful, in those terms. I can see the advertising campaign now: "Bank at Big Brother Bank, NA - have your eyes ripped out!" The device probably has trouble distinguishing between a mannikin with some real eyes and a real person. Conveniently for the robbers, the victim will be unable to identify anybody later. The plausibility of this threat model has a lot to do with whose eyes we're talking about. If they're your eyes, be my guest. It's probably safe. ;-) This is just one of the many risks of deployment of these technologies, but it's the one that makes even the most docile sheep pay attention. Consider the child implant issue. "You have nothing to worry about because your child's Protect-A-Life implant can only be removed with surgery!" The problem is, that's exactly how it will be removed. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: The Eye Bank To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0

Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A ghost speaking through the medium of replay.com communicated: >There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially >among members whose positions are otherwise indefensible. It's >surprising in a way because this fallacy is more common among >statists. > >There, the fallacy goes like this: if it is immoral, then it must be >illegal. We see this all the time. People think of the government >as their way of expressing moral values. Drugs are wrong, so they >must be made illegal. Discrimination in employment is wrong, so it >also must be illegal. We have countless bad laws based on this false >premise. > >On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, >it must be moral. Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, >hateful, immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was >legal, because of freedom of speech and the First Amendment. Their >critic must be opposed to free speech if he objects to their words. > >Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game. It >leads to the false reasoning of the statists. We must remember that >there is a clear distinction between morality and legality. This is a good thing to remember. However, what you seem to be calling immoral is holding a belief with which you disagree. Is it possible to hold an immoral belief? I don't think so. Once you've drawn a conclusion about the nature of the world you can hardly decide that it would be immoral to understand the truth. Actions, on the other hand, can be immoral. Let's not confuse beliefs with actions. What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world because they are immoral. You have seldom addressed Tim's statements directly. Orwell had a word for this: "crimestop". Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution? To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0

Bernstein argument is in Courtroom 1
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi everyone, This is just to confirm that the Bernstein oral argument is scheduled in Courtroom 1 of the 9th Circuit building. The address is 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco. See ya there, Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

1 0

Re: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell wrote that the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: >Certainly, such a conclusion would be reasonable based upon this >promotional description coupled with the singular character of Hit >Man, which is so narrowly focused in its subject matter and presenta- >tion as to be effectively targeted exclusively to criminals. This claim is demonstrably absurd. There are roughly 26,000 murders a year in the United States each year. The number of contract killings is probably a good deal less than 10% of this which leaves 2600. Let's be generous to the Court and say 10% of these murders are committed by people who read the book. (This can probably be shown to be entirely false by comparing suspected contract murder rates before and after publication of the work.) If we treat the Court with extreme charity we will say that each contract killer reading the book has only killed one person. Total: 260 killers read the book. Presumably many more copies of the book were sold and will be sold. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that most of the people purchasing the book did so for reasons of morbid curiosity. This should not be very surprising. It appears that the judges in this case allowed their eagerness to punish Paladin get in the way of their duties, the law, and common sense. This decision should be overturned. The judges should be impeached. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: RICE v PALADIN ENTERPRISES To: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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

1 0

Qualified Traffic Key to Toys..
by shop＠ns.alpina1.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

and Hobbies Internet Sales. Special Announcement..First Time Offered to selected web sites - Exclusive Banner Program - **only four spaces available in Toys/Hobbies** As the Web gets more and more congested, you know that attracting qualified buyers to your site gets even more challenging! This New Exclusive Offer for your Toys/Hobbies Site will bring you specific, targeted, exposure. Established in 1994, our award-winning, World Wide Shopping Complex with avg 1.5 million hits a month now offers you EXCLUSIVE banner ads in our FOUR highly-visited Toys/Hobbies category directories. This is an exceptional opportunity at a very affordable rate and has not been previously offered. You will get tremendous exposure in four shopping locations. You could not get a more targeted audience for your products. These visitors are specifically looking in theToys/Hobbies section. Introductory Rates: ONE ONLY banner per location at top of Toys/Hobbies category directory. Per Location.....$495.00 for one year All Four Locations...$1495 for one year. What some of our storeowners have accomplished: One storeowner, after just over a year, grew to 5-figure Internet sales,another doubled their sales in just one month, another's business grew to over 70% international, an industrial client reports great response and sales, wholesalers and mfg. are getting distribution for their product lines, another storeowner has built a tremendous catalog mail order business, one store introduced a new product which started selling the first weekend online... To get full details of this exclusive banner offer, please hit reply and type BANNER OFFER in the subject line. However, there are only Four Banner Spots available in your category, so if you are interested, please email back at once. (We will also include other options for your information). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you wish to be permanently removed from our announcement mailings, please hit reply and type remove in subject line. Thank You. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: [RePol] Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From:
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> wrote: > > So what's the problem? Has everyone forgotten how to use their > >delete key? Does nobody have anything better to do with their time > > >and resources than to waste them being offended by people who are > > >trying to offend them? > > > > Well TruthMonger (if that is your real name,) I think you are missing the > > point. For purposes of the discussion, no one cares about the content of > > the messages, who or why they are being sent, nor is anyone bothered by > > anything concerning the message itself. What's being discussed is scarce > > resources of remailer operators. > > I was responding to Bill and Lance's comments in regard to forgery > victims being set up as targets of retribution. I think references to > "deplorable content" indicate some measure of judgement in regard to > defining what is considered 'abuse' of a remailer. You start to tread on dangerous ground when you concern yourself with the content (body) of a post. If, for example, you start to filter on content, then you're implicitly approving anything that you do allow to pass through. That sets a precedent that's hard to contain and exercising editorial control over the contents increases the remailer operator's legal liability for material posted. > However, you are right about the thread basically dealing with the > reprecussions to the remailer operators and their resources as an end > result of the particular modes of remailer use. At the risk of actually > being on-topic in a thread, I should point out that I have always been > of the opinion that it is up to the individual remailer operators to > judge what level and types of use they are able to provide as a service > with their given time and resources. Agreed. My main concern is that those policies should be explicitly disclosed in advance. If certain keywords are forbidden in the Subject: line or body of a message, or if it is forbidden to post to certain NGs or to cross-post to certain combinations of NGs, those restrictions should be explained in the remailer's help file. I don't know whether remailers are currently engaging in content-based filtering or not (none are currently flying the "filter" flag in Raph's remailer list), but there seems to be a strong suspicion among certain posters to the alt.privacy.anon-server NG (probably from newbies) that this is indeed occuring. The usual scenario is that the person tries to make a bunch of posts, none of them show up, and it is assumed that they were blocked by the remailer operator based on their content. My guess is that in most cases the person screwed something up, like sending a message to a mail2news gateway with a malformed or missing Newsgroups: line, but it's rather rare that the poster is reassured by someone in a position to know what might have happened. It would be great if these people were told "we have no restrictions on content other than the length of the message" or at least, "it has become necessary to block certain types of posts, but those cases are spelled out in our help file". > > Most remailers are operated with donated time and resources. Problems with > > the remailer, especially artificially generated ones, are just simply not > > desired. > > True, but I doubt that the artificially generated attacks on a > remailer are possible to fully deter, no matter what convolutions > one puts themselves through in order to stop it. It's important that such attacks not succeed, lest they encourage even more such attacks. They succeed, or course, when they convince the remailer operator to do what the attacker wishes done. Often what is required is a bit of creative damage control. For example, when an attacker starts making posts with pasted From: headers in an attempt to get remailer operators to disable this feature, offering him source blocking instead. - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIVb4gbp0h8ZvosNAQH2Ywf9H6HrrV/QA1TxdLo5OzA/RKKxmfnonuLI Kjd38SnXXw9WtVsTwbvGGdt7HiQ4BP93JWMSDseM0Rg61Rvsa5sBp017V3xeHqzF mr8wE70VkXGa/P0Dmk8ToP0R0wIQoFasyrK8QeBXNZpII0VZo0qlsz1SctwIhmpZ NQ44yBDRramc3zOy2OFzKoxM4iBz3TBLuZodqeiFFWbJtwmvK9PxxmZ3wYgxjDGA JnqHriOMwG74qUBYmmyrrR877HIL6WJreQR+m0PAiuzSvKSyJngT44ejcS1e33zf XMipKUZAAyVqmtfkRLsgBd3aVDS/zwBQWWgDMnLNo/Fzo70vhs33BQ== =OCx/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! /
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > It never fails to amaze me that complainers point out that an > >'abusive' letter started out, "I hate niggersfaggotsjewsyou!" > >and then proceed to list the other fifty 'abusive' things that > >the writer had to say. > > The real problem, besides the emotional distress some people feel > at the abuse they get in response to forged postings, > and the potential loss of reputation capital, is that people > keep trying to call their ISP to get them shut down, > and some ISPs do this sort of thing, squashing abusive-sounding customers > first and asking questions later. Ok, soon-to-be-ex customers... Any ISP that would react that way should probably be avoided, anyway. Knee-jerk censorship like that is one of the best arguments around for posting via remailers. Not to mention the fact that posting anonymously prevents one's e-mail address from being misused in that fashion. But personally, the most persuasive argument is to keep people from compiling a de facto dossier on you based on your public postings, selling it to potential employers, and perhaps keeping you from getting a certain job because of your controversial, unpopular, and/or un-politically-correct opinions. IMO, people who rely on placebos like those "X-No-Archive" header flags are fooling themselves if they think they will be universally honored. Most so-called "forged postings" are rather crudely done, and the ones done using a remailer to paste headers are the most obvious ones of all. I'm not sure what the legal standard for "forgery" is, but if it's anything like that for fraud, it requires that a REASONABLE PERSON would be fooled. Given all the disclaimers present in the headers of remailer output, I doubt that any posts with pasted From: would meet that standard. Yes, I've heard the argument that "people don't read headers", but so what? Most of them probably don't read the fine print on contracts, either, but they're still responsible for what it says. - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNIVRpAbp0h8ZvosNAQHcBAf+MCa1DBhmtI4h93zsegO6/fR0RJPko68+ f5ImWOnzxdg1eN4WkbdD4ELn00jLTZC+7+Xw94BkeT9wj1KLmP/BE6NUANdYFzdW YRyAHIK/WsYN6k9dal54TdDviC7SpBUH3IHnQa2USYJjfd9raviYp5NoCpBz5D7s E0+mnfxo8ufTE9Z09qRGmjtxrEfO+gug6lYYCG0h5j7SD+6mVcGuWFmoxbDzhqma IkzngE1dn3xXmwdMTQ5WNvWj+qths52hnszeQ7ZPE/pwrROVobhMevlabM2NYPA0 BLv5L0Te+p12Hj2599znmzJyY5NdqsqBzBbg9yFfaqoavdM/bg4wVw== =4Ppz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Cypherpunks, PGP Buyout, & Writing Code...
by Nerthus＠server1.efga.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[NOTE: This message was remailed by an anonymous remailing system. The original sender is unknown, and has inserted the From: header. This information has not been verified. As with all mail or news messages, you should examine the headers carefully before responding. Direct questions about this system to <admin(a)anon.efga.org>.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim Choate wrote: >Perhaps the buy-out of PGP is a good thing. Consider that now there is a >clear and present motive for Cypherpunks to start writing the next wave of >world-class crypto...it really is the *only* shure way that the process >doesn't get subverted...we're no longer able to rely on a single commen >source of crypto tools. Perhaps we should hold a Requiem for PGP, or maybe an Irish wake instead. Let's take a look back at some of the good things PGP did toward furthering the use of crypto. Phil Zimmerman took public key cryptography and brought it to a fairly wide base of users: 4 million people, plus or minus a million or two. :-) That's rather substantial given that less than 100 million people are estimated to be on the Net right now. Think of how many more yet-to-be Net users will demand strong cryptography in their communications, be it personal, financial, legal, recreational...who knows what else? PGP also showed how both a freeware and paid-for version of encryption software can be marketed together. The paid-for version of PGP 5.0 allows users to generate the new El Gamal/DSS keys as well as the familiar RSA keys, while the freeware only allows for the former. The important lesson here, I think, is that the writers of "the next wave of world-class crypto" can make money from the paid-for versions with the extra bells and whistles that some of us like, but they are not stifling the expansion of their software's user base because they are offering a freeware version that implements the basic protocols for communicating with users of the paid-for version, and of course other freeware users. Nerthus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNIUHwxa1d3zm4nqOEQIG4wCgsDqyMsl64IsDwz814eL9SwdJmu0AoJ9M OaSWiBx2cZZqq97f0GZ1GuJR =Mqbu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0